Robber’s ‘friend’ on social media account turned out to be an undercover police officer

It might seem reassuring to post messages on social media so that only your friends can see them. But if one of those “friends” you approved turns out to be an undercover police officer, anything you say online could be used against you in court.

That was the message Thursday from a state appeals court in San Diego, which upheld Chaz Nasjhee Pride’s robbery conviction and rejected his argument that police violated his right to privacy.

Pride was charged with taking part in a gang robbery in a San Diego parking lot on a night in May 2017. The victim said he told some men he was looking for marijuana, then followed them into the lot where he was attacked by five men, beaten and robbed of his iPad, shoes, gold watches, chain necklace, and $2,700 in cash.

A gang unit detective thought he recognized Pride from the victim’s description of one of the robbers, and checked out Pride’s social media account, which he was able to view after portraying himself as a friend — and gaining Pride’s permission to view the posts. There, the court said, he found a video Pride had posted shortly after the robbery that showed him wearing a gold chain around his neck and saying, “Check out the new chain, dog.”

The victim wasn’t sure he could identify Pride from a photo, but told officers he recognized his chain, the court said. Police then got a search warrant, found proceeds of the robbery at Pride’s home, and arrested him wearing the chain.

Pride was convicted of a gang-affiliated robbery and sentenced to 21 years in prison. The Fourth District Court of Appeal told the sentencing judge Thursday to consider reducing his term by five years, based on a new state law that eliminated mandatory sentence increases for many types of prior felony convictions. But the court said the detective had not invaded Pride’s privacy by posing as a friend and viewing his video without a warrant.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable police searches, does not protect “voluntary communications with individuals who are secret government informers or agents,” Presiding Justice Judith McConnell noted in the 3-0 ruling. She said courts in several states have concluded that people who post messages on social media take their chances of encountering false “friends.”

“Pride assumed the risk that the account for one of his ‘friends’ could be an undercover profile for a police detective or that any other ‘friend’ could save and share the information with government officials,” McConnell said. “As such, there is no Fourth Amendment violation,”

Bob Egelko has been a reporter since June 1970. He spent 30 years with the Associated Press, covering news, politics and occasionally sports in Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento, and legal affairs in San Francisco from 1984 onward. He worked for the San Francisco Examiner for five months in 2000, then joined The Chronicle in November 2000.

His beat includes state and federal courts in California, the Supreme Court and the State Bar. He has a law degree from McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and is a member of the bar. Coverage has included the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the appointment of Rose Bird to the state Supreme Court and her removal by the voters, the death penalty in California and the battles over gay rights and same-sex marriage.